Rating: 
Summary: Wonderfully unbias look at the War on the south
Review: This book is a must have. It makes a clear case that Abraham Lincoln was the motivating factor for the Civil War because of the obtuse way he had of dealing with the south. He raised unreasonable tariffs that caused the south to rebel. He was also a racist and a dictator. He did not stretch the constitution he clearly disregarded it. He paved the way for all kinds of abuse of the constitution by not allowing the south to succeed and was the cause of millions of people's deaths. A murder, dictator, racist, was the man most regard as the best president ever due to our bias public education system.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies fabrication and tomfoolery
Review: The base argument ehre is that a peaceful settlement to the civil war was possible. Which peaceful settlement would that hve been? The peaceful settlement when the COnfederates fired on Ft. Sumner or was it the peaceful settlement that would have allowed Slavery to exist? Was it the peaceful settlement that would allow states to suceed from the union any time they wanted? This books argument is wrong and the idea is nonsense. Any true student of the Civil war knows that the war, once Lincoln was elected, was inevitable. Regardless if you support the South or think the war was a catastrophe(it was) it doesn't mean you can just re-write history and decide it didn't need to happen. This book is almost as realistic as claiming that America didn't need to enter WWII.Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: Fit for the fireplace
Review: I am in shock that this piece of filth could find a publisher to get this into circulation. Don't come to my town talking that trash.
Rating:
Summary: Can we have less than one star?
Review: So Thomas Dilorenzo writes that BAD Abe Lincoln was the cause of the Civil War, oops, I mean the War Against the Invading North. Only one problem here, the secession started BEFORE Lincoln was in office. But facts never stood in the way of the "Lost Cause" folks, a.k.a. flat earthers. By the way Dilorenzo, why didn't the south negotiate a peaceful means to remain in the United States (that's right it was then and still is now the United States thanks to Pres. Lincoln)? What really galls me is how many of these flat earthers are the same ones who tell others that if they don't like this country, then they should leave! There are so many people wishing they had a country like America, and here we have so many wishing that their ancestors had taken them out of the U.S. Well, I proudly fly my flag and last I checked, the U.S. has a free exit door, so God Bless America Mr. Dilorenzo and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Rating:
Summary: Trash
Review: A terrible work that is disgraceful to a patriotic American. More explanations of how weak minded rebels cannot forget their defeat at the hands of the United States of America. Lincoln had to bend a couple rules to save our nation. ...
Rating:
Summary: A refreshingly objective look at Lincoln
Review: H.L. Mencken once said something to the effect that of all the best selling book genres, Abraham Lincoln is a genre all his own. More has been written about Lincoln than any other American president, probably any other statesman. And it is all largely rubbish. We have in Thomas DiLorenzo's book a refreshingly objective picture of the Real Lincoln. One thing that we should always remember in any study of Lincoln is that he was a politician. One contemporary called him "the smartest parliamentarian and cunningest logroller" in Illinois. Murray Rothbard put it more candidly, calling Lincoln "a conniver, manipulator, and liar." (p. 11) This should be at the fore of our minds, so that to take but one example, the Emancipation Proclamation, many questions emerge. We always hear about the Civil War, and yet two long, bloody years went by before any mention of slavery. Then all of a sudden came the Emancaption Proclamation. However, as was widely noted in the papers of the time, such as the New York World: "The president has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." (p. 36) Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, said: "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." (p. 36) The proclamation was a propaganda ploy, a "war measure" as Lincoln put it, which succeeded as a kind of facade. One of the reasons for this was that European dignitaries such as Lord Acton and Pope Pius IX were sympathetic to the South. Had Lincoln intended to free the slaves, DiLorenzo wonders, why not do what the rest of the world had done? Peaceful emancipation worked in Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and elsewhere slavery once thrived. Why the bloody and costly war? The monetary costs of the war were enough to free every slave "and give each 40 acres and a mule" (p. 275), but Lincoln had a more radical agenda. If you want to know this agenda and the Real Lincoln of history, I highly recommend this book.
Rating: 
Summary: I Just Do Not Know
Review: To be very upfront about this review, I do not know much about President Lincoln other then what I was taught in High School and College history courses. A friend of mine was reading this book and told me it was interesting. I thought it would be interesting, maybe give me a new insight or some unique facts. I started with the forward (like you do) and found that I had somehow picked up a hate filled rant about all things evil being placed at the feet of honist Abe. If I would have stopped with the forward, written by someone so disgruntled about life that even spring days probably get him in a bad mood, I would have thought the book to not be good enough for the trash. I read on and found to my betterment that the author of the book was a bit less nasty then the author of the forward. Given the start of the book, I was predisposed to wonder what the agenda of the book was. I kept reading, but found myself doubting many of the assumptions and conclusions. Not from any facts I had, but because of the impression the forward gave me that this book was an ultra negative book no matter what the facts were. I finished the book and even with the rather unsettling acts the author reported, I am still thinking the book was written with an agenda in the forefront and the author molded the history to fit the title. The book was interesting and well written, there were a few slow parts, but for the most part it was an enjoyable read. I just felt like my current held belief that Lincoln was one the best Presidents we had was not changed with the book because of the tone the author took. Did we get the facts or partial comments and statements taken out of context and fit together to present a story that was different from the original telling. I will leave it to more learned history buffs to tell you.
Rating: 
Summary: "The Real Lincoln" is the Real Deal!
Review: "When in the Course of Human Events it Becomes Necessary for One People to Dissolve the Political Bands Which Have Connected them to Another...". That is the statement of SECESSION that opens the Declaration of Independence. The American colonists declared that "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" entitled them to "assume among the Powers of the Earth," a "separate and equal station". They were SECEDING from the lawfully constituted government under which they lived! How silly of the southern states to think they could do the same thing. There may be flaws in this book, but, the truth of Lincoln's dictatorial regime is laid bare. Before Lincoln entered politics he was a lawyer and the highest paid corporate lobbyist in the history of the nation. Illinois, the state where Lincoln practiced law, was, like most northern states, quite hostile to Black people that were fleeing slavery and there was much that a powerful lawyer like Lincoln could have done to help; he never lifted a finger. As president he was an eager promoter of corporate welfare; amazingly the very companies he had lobbied for as a private lawyer were the recipients of the biggest transfer of public land and tax dollars in the history of the young nation! The troops that Lincoln sent south "to free the slaves" went directly from that project to helping another group of oppressed minorities, the Plains Indians; or rather they massacred them. These facts are indisputable, but, you won't learn them from mainstream institutions like the government school system or the corporate-state media; DiLorenzo's book is a good place to start uncovering the truth and it will go a long way towards helping understand current events. The Bush administration's gross disregard for due process and other civil liberties, under the pretext of emergency, and their massive inflation of the federal budget and corporate welfare is like "deja vu all over again", except George Bush is a piker compare to "Honest Abe".
Rating:
Summary: I feel for the tree that gave its life to become this book.
Review: ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. This author went to the same school as joseph goebbels I think. I envision that broken hearted rebels will say over and over that this review is not helpful. What is not helpful is a guy writing a book to revert 140 years of progress for humanity. Unfortunately, if states cannot fulfill "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL," the feds have to step in. Since the declaration of independence came prior to the constitution, its spirit prevails more strongly in our history. The declaration was the first document of these independent United States after all. Written by a lifelong northern republican. (Did ya think I would let them beat up on the first republican president and the father of the Republican Party?) Ha Ha!
Rating:
Summary: Poor opinions
Review: This author would have you believe that Lincoln single handedly destroyed the spirit of the constitution. What he does not mention is that Thomas Jefferson originally drafted an anti slavery paragraph into the original rough draft of the declaration of independence (T.Jefferson was pressured to remove it by the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia (no surprise there since S.C. started the civil war in the first place)), and that the true test of our nation was if the nation would embody that spirit that all men are created equal, or would continue half free and half slave. If Lincoln mildly violated the constitution to achieve this, it was to fulfill the document that inspired the constitution in the first place, hence saving the true spirit of the constitution. It is hard to argue that Lincoln did the wrong things in office, and any other president would most likely have compromised with the South: the South that perpetuated the most evil institution imaginable. In Lincoln's words, "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." This author argues that President Lincoln was wrong. Perhaps the author thinks the failed policies of President Buchanan were working, or perhaps the author is ignorant. I feel the latter is true!
| 
